Last week’s entry, “The Process,” caught the eye of fellow former Capitol scribe Steve Kraske, once the ace political reporter for the Kansas City Star and now an associate teaching professor at UMKC. Steve also does a weekly radio show about current events on NPR affiliate KCUR-FM. He decided we needed to talk about “The Process” on his Monday show this week.
http://kcur.org/post/seg-1-gov-greitens-and-process-impeachment-seg-2-saving-historical-records-umkc
In preparing for the program, it occurred to THIS former Capitol scribe that the person who holds the highest elective office in state government does not have one of the privileges that people in other walks of life have when they get into trouble. We don’t know how having that privilege would change the way events are developing, but the idea of instituting it might bear some thought.
In private business as well as in state and local government, a person suspected of breaking the law or of violating company standards can be suspended with or without pay until legal proceedings determine if that person is guilty. If they are, the suspension becomes termination. If they are found NOT guilty they can expect to be made whole by their employer.
But—as far as we know—the legislature can’t suspend a governor until the courts have made their determinations. Impeachment during that period is not suspension. It’s flat-out removal. And if the governor is found NOT guilty, he or she has no expectation of being restored to their position.
When it comes to a governor, it’s an in-or-out matter. And that’s a matter of concern for the governor and those in and out of the legislature as impeachment talk continues. As we write this, we have not heard how the signature-gathering on the petition for a special session to consider impeachment is going. Three-fourths of the members of both houses have to sign the petition. Pro-impeachment lawmakers have made their sentiments known, often loudly. But the governor only needs twenty-six percent of the legislators to refuse to sign and the special session push fizzles.
If suspension were to become part of state law, the Lt. Governor would be the acting governor until the case is resolved. If the governor is cleared, the Lt. Governor goes back to his or her smaller office and the governor returns to the big oval room.
Would such a system be less unpleasant than what we’re watching now? Probably depends on the governor/legislature relationship. Should the legislature have the power to, in effect, fire the governor before a legal determination is made in the governor’s legal cases? It has it now. But is it right? Isn’t there or can’t there be some structure that gives the governor the same privilege lesser citizens have when they become targets of suspicion?
We’re just asking.
Dear Bob,
Section 106.050 provides: Suspension of impeached officer. — If any officer shall be impeached, he is hereby suspended from exercising his office, after he shall be notified thereof, until his acquittal.
Best always,
Bill
Section 106.050 was construed by the Court in State ex inf. Nixon v. Moriarity,893 S.W.2d 806 (Mo. banc 1994), which concluded the Court could follow the statute as an aide to its impeachment power. In that case, the Court failed to consider the case of a special tribunal trying an impeachment, as provided for trial of the governor. But that would not preclude a similar result, particularly once the special tribunal were appointed. But it would require a review by the Court as to whether suspension were necessary. The governor would be entitled to the emoluments of office while suspended if the Moriarity case were followed.
A further thought, under the Moriarity case, the governor apparently remains in office pending completion of the impeachment trial unless suspended. This is the same result as in the federal system.